The Rooney Rule

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from OnlyDaTruth. Show OnlyDaTruth's posts

    The Rooney Rule

    Has the NFL made any progress?


    "


    We all yearn for the day when race is an afterthought in discussing hiring practices, and as we have noted, the NFL reached an important milestone in February. It's clear, however, that the league still has vital work to do in maintaining and increasing the pool of attractive head-coaching candidates.


    If you're vested in the success of the Rooney Rule, which seeks to ensure that qualified aspirants are given genuine consideration for jobs, these figures should concern you. Arguably the quickest way to jump onto the NFL's annual list of hot head-coaching candidates is to be the playcaller of a top offense.


    It has happened five times in the past two years alone, but in 2014, African-Americans represent only 6 percent of that pool. (Arizona Cardinals offensive coordinator Harold Goodwin is African-American, but he doubles as the offensive line coach and does not call plays. Aside from Goodwin, Jackson and Hamilton, the NFL's 29 other offensive coordinators are white.)


    Worse, the direct pipeline is bone dry. The traditional incubator for playcallers is the quarterbacks coach position. In 2014, all 32 of them are white.


    Those are the facts. What's more difficult to determine, of course, is the explanation. And before you assume the worst, you might be interested to hear Jackson's thoughts on the matter. It's time, he said, for African-American assistant coaches to push harder for advancement."


    http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/134040/inside-slant-final-frontier-for-rooney-rule

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from SLGDEV. Show SLGDEV's posts

    Re: The Rooney Rule

    Have you ever heard of Bakke (Univ. Calif. at Berkeley)?  I am against discriminatory practices based upon race or religion, etc., but that is a two way street.  I am also against discrimination against whites in the name of removing discrimination of others.  May the best candidates win in all cases.

    SLGDEV/sheldong/sheldonlg

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from fishers5. Show fishers5's posts

    Re: The Rooney Rule

    Just maybe the interviews with any minority applicants just don't go well or the philosophy used by the  candidate didn't match what the team was looking for..   There are only so many spots to go around.

    Always Right.....at least in my mind

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from OnlyDaTruth. Show OnlyDaTruth's posts

    Re: The Rooney Rule

    In response to SLGDEV's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Have you ever heard of Bakke (Univ. Calif. at Berkeley)?  I am against discriminatory practices based upon race or religion, etc., but that is a two way street.  I am also against discrimination against whites in the name of removing discrimination of others.  May the best candidates win in all cases.

    SLGDEV/sheldong/sheldonlg

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Did not know much about him. Interesting tho.

    "

    Dr. Smith disagrees with the notion that test scores tell the whole story. She asserts that inequities are built into the admissions process in a way that disadvantages minorities, particularly where test scores are concerned. “Test scores are based on the SAT, GPA and AP (Advanced Placement courses),” she says. “Not all schools offer AP, so those total scores will naturally be lower. SAT scores tend to correlate with class. Now that there are practice tests and courses on how to take the SAT, it becomes more a measure of how well you learn to take the test, rather than a measure of general aptitude.”

    Even though the U.S. is becoming more diverse, the numbers themselves don’t take into account opportunities. It is still the case that whites generally have greater opportunities than do minorities. According to the Department of Labor, while the number of black college graduates rose 20 percent between 2000 and 2010, the gap in the share of employed blacks and whites who are college graduates is still 10 percentage points, which has not changed.

    Dr. Smith notes that affirmative action was put into place to make institutions more inclusive and identify talent in different forms. “It opens doors to talented people who are not in a privileged class,” she says. However, she indicates that data on the success of diversity programs shows that progress is still slow regarding underrepresented communities."

    http://www.insightintodiversity.com/affirmative-action-and-reverse-discrimination-walking-the-fine-line-susan-borowski

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: The Rooney Rule

    I'm always indifferent about these types of laws/rules. I understand their purpose and why they are required but at the same point it does sometimes penalize more qualified candidates based solely on their race (which is what these types of laws are suppose to prevent to begin with). Sometimes I question what they determine is an equal representation. Is it based on % of race per capita in a given area, in the nation, or is it thought to be a straight 50/50 split even though the %'s of the races aren't equal.

    Also looking at the positions in general, is there a general time table it takes for a person to work their ways up the ranks where expecting an immediate increase based on race is unrealistic and a slower increase is expected due to the amount of time required to move up those ranks regardless of race. In other words if it takes on average 8-12yrs in the league to get up to that level and the lower ranks were thin with candidates of a particular race to begin with is it better to re-examine the result after 15-20 years giving time for the lower ranks to fill and have people work their way through the same system every other race has to work through.

    Adding on to that is this a position that the particular race would want to fill? We can say there are only white QB coaches in the league, but are there qualified candidates not being allowed to fill those spots or is it that there just aren't a lot qualified candidates of a particular race to fill those spots because they'd rather another spot? Just as I don't think it's right to force employers to hire less qualified people just because of race I also don't think it's right to force a particular race to have to fill those positions because of the lack of candidates to begin with. I leave that up to the individual and their qualifications to decide if they want to fill that position or not, not to force employers or potential employees to fill those roles simply because of a lack of 1 particular race. Put it this way, if all baggers at a grocery store were white but no other race wanted to be baggers and never applied is it right to hammer the grocery store for only having white baggers to begin with? You need qualified applications to fill the positions and pointing at race might not be a true measure of why one particular race is the majority in a job if there is a lack of applications from other races to fill those positions to begin with.

    It's a fine tight rope to walk but there are a lot of factors that need to be considered that I don't think are when discussing these types of laws. For example if a part of the country is 90% white and a company has a 85% white employees and turn down a minority candidate based on qualifications where they were the only minority of 30 people applying for the job, is that still racism? According to some laws, and articles, it might be and that person can sue for it (doesn't mean they would win) but you can see where there is a lot of grey area dependent on a lot of factors where articles like this doesn't dig deep enough to find out if it's an issue with lack of candidates based on desire and % per capita or if it actually is an attempt to keep a race out of a certain position. In this day an age I hope it's the former but we are in a transition period stuck in a weird perfect storm of old school racism, reverse racism, race baiting, and looking for racism that might not be there. I like to believe we can hire based solely on qualifications but I understand these laws need to exist until the old school racism people die off (which I understand there will always be a % of racist out there but hopefully it shrinks and less of them in power), though I really hope when that happens the laws/rules get changed with it as I see some reverse trends happening in which qualified candidates are over looked based solely on their not a minority and the company either has to fill a quota or the company is afraid of being sued if they hire 1 race over another. In the end these laws/rules are a double edged sword that should be used sparingly in a temporary fashion to protect from injustice but ultimately they can't be a permanent solution as they themselves are based solely on a persons race and not on the qualification or surrounding circumstances. 

    Trust me, I'm an engineer!

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from DoNotSleepOnThePats. Show DoNotSleepOnThePats's posts

    Re: The Rooney Rule

    Not a fan of affirmative action or the Rooney Rule.  You hire the person based on them being the best person for the job.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostatewarrior. Show bostatewarrior's posts

    Re: The Rooney Rule

    In response to OnlyDaTruth's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Did not know much about him. Interesting tho.

    "

    Dr. Smith disagrees with the notion that test scores tell the whole story. She asserts that inequities are built into the admissions process in a way that disadvantages minorities, particularly where test scores are concerned. “Test scores are based on the SAT, GPA and AP (Advanced Placement courses),” she says. “Not all schools offer AP, so those total scores will naturally be lower. SAT scores tend to correlate with class. Now that there are practice tests and courses on how to take the SAT, it becomes more a measure of how well you learn to take the test, rather than a measure of general aptitude.”

    Even though the U.S. is becoming more diverse, the numbers themselves don’t take into account opportunities. It is still the case that whites generally have greater opportunities than do minorities. According to the Department of Labor, while the number of black college graduates rose 20 percent between 2000 and 2010, the gap in the share of employed blacks and whites who are college graduates is still 10 percentage points, which has not changed.

    Dr. Smith notes that affirmative action was put into place to make institutions more inclusive and identify talent in different forms. “It opens doors to talented people who are not in a privileged class,” she says. However, she indicates that data on the success of diversity programs shows that progress is still slow regarding underrepresented communities."

    http://www.insightintodiversity.com/affirmative-action-and-reverse-discrimination-walking-the-fine-line-susan-borowski" rel="nofollow">http://www.insightintodiversity.com/affirmative-action-and-reverse-discrimination-walking-the-fine-line-susan-borowski

    [/QUOTE]

    To say someone is privileged just because they are white is discriminatory.  It denies certain individuals their civil rights based on race.

    affirmative action was designed as a temporary measure to even the playing field.  It has been around now for 45 years now.  It's just institutionalized racism against whites. 

    When you have to mark your race or ethnic background on an application, there is only one choice that is not a protected class.  That is white.

    Privileged whites never made any sacrifice because of this program.  Disadvantaged whites have paid the price of affirmative action.

    Tired of it.  

    Didn't always have food growing up.  Didn't have hot water.  Yeah, some privledge.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from OnlyDaTruth. Show OnlyDaTruth's posts

    Re: The Rooney Rule

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm always indifferent about these types of laws/rules. I understand their purpose and why they are required but at the same point it does sometimes penalize more qualified candidates based solely on their race (which is what these types of laws are suppose to prevent to begin with). Sometimes I question what they determine is an equal representation. Is it based on % of race per capita in a given area, in the nation, or is it thought to be a straight 50/50 split even though the %'s of the races aren't equal.

    Also looking at the positions in general, is there a general time table it takes for a person to work their ways up the ranks where expecting an immediate increase based on race is unrealistic and a slower increase is expected due to the amount of time required to move up those ranks regardless of race. In other words if it takes on average 8-12yrs in the league to get up to that level and the lower ranks were thin with candidates of a particular race to begin with is it better to re-examine the result after 15-20 years giving time for the lower ranks to fill and have people work their way through the same system every other race has to work through.

    Adding on to that is this a position that the particular race would want to fill? We can say there are only white QB coaches in the league, but are there qualified candidates not being allowed to fill those spots or is it that there just aren't a lot qualified candidates of a particular race to fill those spots because they'd rather another spot? Just as I don't think it's right to force employers to hire less qualified people just because of race I also don't think it's right to force a particular race to have to fill those positions because of the lack of candidates to begin with. I leave that up to the individual and their qualifications to decide if they want to fill that position or not, not to force employers or potential employees to fill those roles simply because of a lack of 1 particular race. Put it this way, if all baggers at a grocery store were white but no other race wanted to be baggers and never applied is it right to hammer the grocery store for only having white baggers to begin with? You need qualified applications to fill the positions and pointing at race might not be a true measure of why one particular race is the majority in a job if there is a lack of applications from other races to fill those positions to begin with.

    It's a fine tight rope to walk but there are a lot of factors that need to be considered that I don't think are when discussing these types of laws. For example if a part of the country is 90% white and a company has a 85% white employees and turn down a minority candidate based on qualifications where they were the only minority of 30 people applying for the job, is that still racism? According to some laws, and articles, it might be and that person can sue for it (doesn't mean they would win) but you can see where there is a lot of grey area dependent on a lot of factors where articles like this doesn't dig deep enough to find out if it's an issue with lack of candidates based on desire and % per capita or if it actually is an attempt to keep a race out of a certain position. In this day an age I hope it's the former but we are in a transition period stuck in a weird perfect storm of old school racism, reverse racism, race baiting, and looking for racism that might not be there. I like to believe we can hire based solely on qualifications but I understand these laws need to exist until the old school racism people die off (which I understand there will always be a % of racist out there but hopefully it shrinks and less of them in power), though I really hope when that happens the laws/rules get changed with it as I see some reverse trends happening in which qualified candidates are over looked based solely on their not a minority and the company either has to fill a quota or the company is afraid of being sued if they hire 1 race over another. In the end these laws/rules are a double edged sword that should be used sparingly in a temporary fashion to protect from injustice but ultimately they can't be a permanent solution as they themselves are based solely on a persons race and not on the qualification or surrounding circumstances. 

    Trust me, I'm an engineer!

    [/QUOTE]

    good post.  It never is easy to understand the issues from various perspectives - we usually make decisions or form ideas based on one's own experiences.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: The Rooney Rule

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    To say someone is privileged just because they are white is discriminatory.  It denies certain individuals their civil rights based on race.

    affirmative action was designed as a temporary measure to even the playing field.  It has been around now for 45 years now.  It's just institutionalized racism against whites. 

    When you have to mark your race or ethnic background on an application, there is only one choice that is not a protected class.  That is white.

    Privileged whites never made any sacrifice because of this program.  Disadvantaged whites have paid the price of affirmative action.

    Tired of it.  

    Didn't always have food growing up.  Didn't have hot water.  Yeah, some privledge.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    I grew up the same. Still can't get that dry bland taste of government cheese over cardboard macaroni out of my mouth. That was our EBT, no steaks just bare essentials to live. To add to your example, when my sister got into college and filled out the forms for federal aid something happened where she was registered as being African-american. Not sure if she checked the wrong box (lets face it after 50 pages of forms it's bound to happen), something got transferred when she passed it in (ie marker transfer between pages), or the registers just entered it wrong but any case she got excited to hear she qualified for a $10k scholarship, which for my family was a ton of money. When she went to sign the papers they were confused she wasn't black. They figured out there was a mistake (not a big deal right, I mean it's just color?) and needed to investigate. After 2 hrs they took the scholarship away saying it was a minority hardship scholarship only, even though my family qualified for hardship, and offered her a $50 book scholarship as an apology for the mistake. That never sat right with me. Hardship should be hardship period, not based on race. And then to blatantly take it away from her lack that if she was a minority think about the uproar that would have happened. Like I said, I understand the reason for some things but why stuff like that? I just don't get it and does nothing but separate the races even further thinking there is one set of rules for one race and others for others. Wouldn't the better solution be opportunity based? You know hardships and environment (regardless of race) get help where they need it but at the same time if there is a clear case where race was the determining factor (regardless of which race it is) that the laws are equal on both ends? 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from OnlyDaTruth. Show OnlyDaTruth's posts

    Re: The Rooney Rule

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    To say someone is privileged just because they are white is discriminatory.  It denies certain individuals their civil rights based on race.

    affirmative action was designed as a temporary measure to even the playing field.  It has been around now for 45 years now.  It's just institutionalized racism against whites. 

    When you have to mark your race or ethnic background on an application, there is only one choice that is not a protected class.  That is white.

    Privileged whites never made any sacrifice because of this program.  Disadvantaged whites have paid the price of affirmative action.

    Tired of it.  

    Didn't always have food growing up.  Didn't have hot water.  Yeah, some privledge.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    I grew up the same. Still can't get that dry bland taste of government cheese over cardboard macaroni out of my mouth. That was our EBT, no steaks just bare essentials to live. To add to your example, when my sister got into college and filled out the forms for federal aid something happened where she was registered as being African-american. Not sure if she checked the wrong box (lets face it after 50 pages of forms it's bound to happen), something got transferred when she passed it in (ie marker transfer between pages), or the registers just entered it wrong but any case she got excited to hear she qualified for a $10k scholarship, which for my family was a ton of money. When she went to sign the papers they were confused she wasn't black. They figured out there was a mistake (not a big deal right, I mean it's just color?) and needed to investigate. After 2 hrs they took the scholarship away saying it was a minority hardship scholarship only, even though my family qualified for hardship, and offered her a $50 book scholarship as an apology for the mistake. That never sat right with me. Hardship should be hardship period, not based on race. And then to blatantly take it away from her lack that if she was a minority think about the uproar that would have happened. Like I said, I understand the reason for some things but why stuff like that? I just don't get it and does nothing but separate the races even further thinking there is one set of rules for one race and others for others. Wouldn't the better solution be opportunity based? You know hardships and environment (regardless of race) get help where they need it but at the same time if there is a clear case where race was the determining factor (regardless of which race it is) that the laws are equal on both ends? 

    [/QUOTE]

    It's just my thought that those of the same socio-economic status (i.e., those below the poverty line) share similar stories and experiences.  I don't know about the stats - like comparing the percentage of those below the poverty line by race (in this country).

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostatewarrior. Show bostatewarrior's posts

    Re: The Rooney Rule

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    To say someone is privileged just because they are white is discriminatory.  It denies certain individuals their civil rights based on race.

    affirmative action was designed as a temporary measure to even the playing field.  It has been around now for 45 years now.  It's just institutionalized racism against whites. 

    When you have to mark your race or ethnic background on an application, there is only one choice that is not a protected class.  That is white.

    Privileged whites never made any sacrifice because of this program.  Disadvantaged whites have paid the price of affirmative action.

    Tired of it.  

    Didn't always have food growing up.  Didn't have hot water.  Yeah, some privledge.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    I grew up the same. Still can't get that dry bland taste of government cheese over cardboard macaroni out of my mouth. That was our EBT, no steaks just bare essentials to live. To add to your example, when my sister got into college and filled out the forms for federal aid something happened where she was registered as being African-american. Not sure if she checked the wrong box (lets face it after 50 pages of forms it's bound to happen), something got transferred when she passed it in (ie marker transfer between pages), or the registers just entered it wrong but any case she got excited to hear she qualified for a $10k scholarship, which for my family was a ton of money. When she went to sign the papers they were confused she wasn't black. They figured out there was a mistake (not a big deal right, I mean it's just color?) and needed to investigate. After 2 hrs they took the scholarship away saying it was a minority hardship scholarship only, even though my family qualified for hardship, and offered her a $50 book scholarship as an apology for the mistake. That never sat right with me. Hardship should be hardship period, not based on race. And then to blatantly take it away from her lack that if she was a minority think about the uproar that would have happened. Like I said, I understand the reason for some things but why stuff like that? I just don't get it and does nothing but separate the races even further thinking there is one set of rules for one race and others for others. Wouldn't the better solution be opportunity based? You know hardships and environment (regardless of race) get help where they need it but at the same time if there is a clear case where race was the determining factor (regardless of which race it is) that the laws are equal on both ends? 

    [/QUOTE]

    I like the cheese!  When George says the line about eating a block of cheese the size of a car battery I think about it.

    i have some stories like your sisters.  I worked 2 jobs while going to college.  Even though my family was poor as dirt, I didn't qualify for any aid.......because I was working 2 jobs.  I didn't really have the study time I needed because.........I worked 2 jobs.   Still, the school asked me to tutor less privileged students that were in a program where they paid no tuition and received a stipend so that they didn't have to work (so they could study).  I would not be paid for the tutoring.  I had to turn them down because.........I worked 2 jobs.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostatewarrior. Show bostatewarrior's posts

    Re: The Rooney Rule

    In response to OnlyDaTruth's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    To say someone is privileged just because they are white is discriminatory.  It denies certain individuals their civil rights based on race.

    affirmative action was designed as a temporary measure to even the playing field.  It has been around now for 45 years now.  It's just institutionalized racism against whites. 

    When you have to mark your race or ethnic background on an application, there is only one choice that is not a protected class.  That is white.

    Privileged whites never made any sacrifice because of this program.  Disadvantaged whites have paid the price of affirmative action.

    Tired of it.  

    Didn't always have food growing up.  Didn't have hot water.  Yeah, some privledge.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    I grew up the same. Still can't get that dry bland taste of government cheese over cardboard macaroni out of my mouth. That was our EBT, no steaks just bare essentials to live. To add to your example, when my sister got into college and filled out the forms for federal aid something happened where she was registered as being African-american. Not sure if she checked the wrong box (lets face it after 50 pages of forms it's bound to happen), something got transferred when she passed it in (ie marker transfer between pages), or the registers just entered it wrong but any case she got excited to hear she qualified for a $10k scholarship, which for my family was a ton of money. When she went to sign the papers they were confused she wasn't black. They figured out there was a mistake (not a big deal right, I mean it's just color?) and needed to investigate. After 2 hrs they took the scholarship away saying it was a minority hardship scholarship only, even though my family qualified for hardship, and offered her a $50 book scholarship as an apology for the mistake. That never sat right with me. Hardship should be hardship period, not based on race. And then to blatantly take it away from her lack that if she was a minority think about the uproar that would have happened. Like I said, I understand the reason for some things but why stuff like that? I just don't get it and does nothing but separate the races even further thinking there is one set of rules for one race and others for others. Wouldn't the better solution be opportunity based? You know hardships and environment (regardless of race) get help where they need it but at the same time if there is a clear case where race was the determining factor (regardless of which race it is) that the laws are equal on both ends? 

    [/QUOTE]

    It's just my thought that those of the same socio-economic status (i.e., those below the poverty line) share similar stories and experiences.  I don't know about the stats - like comparing the percentage of those below the poverty line by race (in this country).

    [/QUOTE]

    That kind of thinking won't get you elected.  You need to trade the constitutional rights of some people for votes.  Every revolution needs a scape goat class.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from OnlyDaTruth. Show OnlyDaTruth's posts

    Re: The Rooney Rule

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    That kind of thinking won't get you elected.  You need to trade the constitutional rights of some people for votes.  Every revolution needs a scape goat class.

    [/QUOTE]

    I definitely don't have the mindset, desire, or "constitution" to become a politician.  I, too, remember those days of powdered milk and horsemeat. Not fun.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostatewarrior. Show bostatewarrior's posts

    Re: The Rooney Rule

    In response to OnlyDaTruth's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    That kind of thinking won't get you elected.  You need to trade the constitutional rights of some people for votes.  Every revolution needs a scape goat class.

    [/QUOTE]

    I definitely don't have the mindset, desire, or "constitution" to become a politician.  I, too, remember those days of powdered milk and horsemeat. Not fun.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yikes! It sounds like there are a lot of people like me on this site.  I thought I was hanging around a better class of people than that.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from OnlyDaTruth. Show OnlyDaTruth's posts

    Re: The Rooney Rule

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yikes! It sounds like there are a lot of people like me on this site.  I thought I was hanging around a better class of people than that.

    [/QUOTE]

    lmao, boy, were you wrong :)

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Salcon. Show Salcon's posts

    Re: The Rooney Rule

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bostatewarrior's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]



    [object HTMLDivElement]

    [/QUOTE]


    I like the cheese!  When George says the line about eating a block of cheese the size of a car battery I think about it.

    i have some stories like your sisters.  I worked 2 jobs while going to college.  Even though my family was poor as dirt, I didn't qualify for any aid.......because I was working 2 jobs.  I didn't really have the study time I needed because.........I worked 2 jobs.   Still, the school asked me to tutor less privileged students that were in a program where they paid no tuition and received a stipend so that they didn't have to work (so they could study).  I would not be paid for the tutoring.  I had to turn them down because.........I worked 2 jobs.

    [/QUOTE]

    That's a great story and kudos to you.  People aren't rewarded enough for just plain hard work.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: The Rooney Rule

    Poor of any race can (or rich families that know how to hide wealth) get enough help for college these days to only be 20K-30K in debt when they get out an a lot of those are subsidized and government loans that have very nice terms.

    Try being a kid who's parents have a middle class income..nothing is subsidized and it racks up. If you don't have the cash to pay outright your looking at 100k-200K in mostly nasty private loans to get a degree in four years. Is it worth it? my kids don't think so. They are working and paying as they go, it will take 8 years to get a degree but they definitely do not take education for granted. I actually think they are and will continue do better in the long run because they have to fight for it. 

     

     

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from patsbandwagonsince76. Show patsbandwagonsince76's posts

    Re: The Rooney Rule

    A football team who passes on the best candidate because of race is probably a losing team...and there are plenty of those in the NFL... so who really knows what is going on. 

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from OnlyDaTruth. Show OnlyDaTruth's posts

    Re: The Rooney Rule

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:


    Poor of any race can (or rich families that know how to hide wealth) get enough help for college these days to only be 20K-30K in debt when they get out an a lot of those are subsidized and government loans that have very nice terms.


    Try being a kid who's parents have a middle class income..nothing is subsidized and it racks up. If you don't have the cash to pay outright your looking at 100k-200K in mostly nasty private loans to get a degree in four years. Is it worth it? my kids don't think so. They are working and paying as they go, it will take 8 years to get a degree but they definitely do not take education for granted. I actually think they are and will continue do better in the long run because they have to fight for it. 


     


    It's crazy for many of these "kids" coming from the middle class.  The inflationary costs for education has outpaced most other things.


    "if the cost of college tuition was $10,000 in 1986, it would now cost the same student over $21,500 if education had increased as much as the average inflation rate but instead education is $59,800 or over 2 ½ times the inflation rate.” "


    And people are wondering why children are still living with their parents well after graduating college. They certainly can't afford purchasing a home; which historically, was the biggest debt people incurred.


    and, the middle class who pay their mortgage on time also bailed out banks for bad lending practices, and for those folks who were living beyond their means.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from oklahomapatriot. Show oklahomapatriot's posts

    Re: The Rooney Rule


    End affirmative action in the NFL

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ImagydSportsBos. Show ImagydSportsBos's posts

    Re: The Rooney Rule

    In response to oklahomapatriot's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    End affirmative action in the NFL

    [/QUOTE]
    sure, when it becomes like the Nba! no race issues there.. the nnumbers just work out.. knicks bring in blacks and whites with no fanfare.. truly hire the best.. first kerr, no go.. derek fisher.. sometimes, its the other way.. nfl hasnt earned the same color blindness.. heck, even women get a fair shake unlike the nfll as champs spurs just hired an assistant who likely will b a head coach in 7 years
    [object HTMLDivElement]

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from oddlyenough. Show oddlyenough's posts

    Re: The Rooney Rule

    As long as the privileged (1 percenters) keep the less privileged fighting amongst themselves the privileged  remain in power.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: The Rooney Rule

    In response to patsbandwagonsince76's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Poor of any race can (or rich families that know how to hide wealth) get enough help for college these days to only be 20K-30K in debt when they get out an a lot of those are subsidized and government loans that have very nice terms.

    Try being a kid who's parents have a middle class income..nothing is subsidized and it racks up. If you don't have the cash to pay outright your looking at 100k-200K in mostly nasty private loans to get a degree in four years. Is it worth it? my kids don't think so. They are working and paying as they go, it will take 8 years to get a degree but they definitely do not take education for granted. I actually think they are and will continue do better in the long run because they have to fight for it. 

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Not sure it's just middle class that has to sit for that. I didn't get into school until later because I was working to save up money (5 years later and the $10k I saved up barely made a dent), but because I was independent and had a job that paid in the upper $20k range I was deemed to rich for a lot of the benefits. I still left school with a small house mortgage being dirt poor going in, lol. I'm not sure what the special trick is to get all the mystical assistance I kept hearing about but if having to eat noodles for 6 months because you have no money doesn't qualify I honestly have no clue what does. Luckily my sister escaped with only $30k in debt (smaller state school) but that was 7 years before me and she actually did qualify for hardship grants (trust me they aren't nearly as big as you think they are). The grants only covered 1/4 of her expenses.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from agcsbill. Show agcsbill's posts

    Re: The Rooney Rule

    Amazing how this subject continually rears its head with all that is going on to eliminate discrimination of any sort. With that said.....  this is an observation on my part for which I may ( make that most likely ) get slammed.

    When the subject of race comes up, it is just about 100% brought up by African-Americans. I rarely, if ever, recall hearing the "race card" mentioned by Asians, Hispanics and other minorities when it comes to getting jobs or other "benefits" for which mostly whites are claimed to enjoy the most.  When something happens to a white person, or any other ethnic minority other than African-American, barely a peep comes out about the race of the person may have had a part in the event.  Have something happen to an African-American, it is their race that had the most to do with the event. What I "observe" is in many instances African-Americans are very quick to blame others for their plight instead of looking inward to find what they may have done, or not done, to realize a particular result. In a way, though, too many in this entire country have an "entitlement" mentality and it is always someone else's fault if they do not get what they want or something happens to them regardless of what they did.

    As to this discussion, one asks, "Why are there so few African-Americans in positions of influence in the NFL?" Is it lack of candidates and not just they aren't given a chance?  As some have pointed out, if 30 candidates step forward for a position and only a couple are African-American, is it the fault of the other 28 there are so few African-American candidates?  One just hopes for the day in which any applicant for a job is strictly looked at for their qualifications and ability to do the job with skin color having no bearing whatsoever. But, we are only 50 years or so removed from those race riot days and there is still a generation of Americans who grew up being taught there are inferior races.  Until those "teachings/feelings" are wiped out, it may be a while before we see total elimination of race discrimination in the work place.

    My two cents.... 

    AGCSBill, just a fan havin' fun!!

     

Share